Casino dice games in Australia: house edges, the offshore pitch and what the ACMA has done about it

Casino dice games live in two distinct places in Australia. The first is the licensed casino floor in Melbourne, Perth, Sydney and a handful of other state-regulated venues, where craps, sic bo and two-up actually get dealt under rules a regulator has approved. The second is the offshore website pitched at Australian email addresses, where the same game names appear in lobbies that the Australian Communications and Media Authority has spent the last decade warning, fining and asking internet providers to block. A punter who only sees the second picture gets a warped one, because the maths the offshore sites trumpet and the legality of the product they are selling are not the same question. The licensed-floor picture is small but real, and the offshore picture is loud but unlawful.

The data below is current as of 8 November 2026, checked against the ACMA register of formal warnings and blocking requests. House-edge figures are taken from Wizard of Odds and apply to common rulesets; specific casino variants may differ.

Craps: where the edge lives between bets

Craps is the dice game Australians encounter by name most often, mostly because the offshore sites put a thumbnail of it on every landing page. The game itself is straightforward: two dice, a shooter who throws them, and a set of wagers that resolve on each throw or across a series of throws. The complication is not the rules — the complication is that the house edge on a craps table ranges from about 1.36% to over 11% depending on which of the bets the punter actually places, and almost no one places the cheapest one.

The cheapest bets on a standard craps layout are the line bets. The Pass Line and the Come bet both carry a house edge of 1.41%, and their mirror images — Don’t Pass and Don’t Come — sit a hair lower at 1.36%. These are the bets the table is built around, the ones the stickman calls out first, and the only ones a serious bankroll stretches very far on. The reason the edge is that low is structural: the Pass Line wins on a 7 or 11 on the come-out roll, loses on 2, 3 or 12, and otherwise establishes a “point” the shooter has to hit again before a 7 comes up. The 12 ways to win against the 4 ways to lose on the come-out roll, combined with the point phase, push the math into the low single digits.

Then come the proposition bets. Any Craps, a one-roll wager that wins on any 2, 3 or 12, carries a house edge of 11.11%. That is not a misprint — it is roughly eight times the edge of the Pass Line, and it pays 7:1. The hardways, the hops, the world bet: every one of these one-roll or short-cycle wagers has an edge that runs between 5% and 16%, and the table pays them out cheerfully because that is where the casino makes its money on craps. The dice do not change. The choice of bet does.

A useful frame for thinking about craps: the game is not one product with one edge, it is a menu of products at different prices, and the only bets worth making are the cheapest ones. Anyone who learned the game from an offshore site’s marketing copy learned it upside down, because those pages tend to feature the proposition bets in their screenshots — the bright coloured chips, the loud payouts, the 30:1 on a hardway. The house edge on those bets is the price the punter actually pays, and it is the figure the marketing never quotes.

The “right” versus “wrong” bettor distinction is another piece of craps vocabulary that survives the trip offshore. A right bettor wagers with the shooter — Pass Line and Come — and is betting the point will be made before a 7. A wrong bettor wagers against the shooter — Don’t Pass and Don’t Come — and is betting the 7 will land first. The two bets carry nearly identical edges (1.41% versus 1.36%), but the wrong bettor is socially marked: most tables consider betting against the shooter rude, and several outright discourage it. The half-percent of edge difference does not justify the social cost at most tables, and the practical takeaway is that the right bettor’s 1.41% Pass Line is the standard craps play.

The deeper point — the one worth taking from craps before moving to the other dice games — is that the house edge a punter pays is determined almost entirely by the wager, not by the game. A punter who stays on the line bets pays a small edge on a volatile game. A punter who chases the proposition bets pays an enormous edge on the same game. The dice are not the variable; the bet selection is.

Sic bo: three dice, more bets, similar spread

Sic bo is the other dice game that turns up on offshore lobbies, and it is genuinely different in mechanics. Three dice are shaken in a cage, the punter wagers on the total or on specific combinations, and the layout has roughly fifty distinct bets rather than craps’s dozen. The game arrived in the United States with Chinese immigrants in the early twentieth century, and the name itself translates roughly as “precious dice”.

The maths on sic bo runs across a wider range than craps, because the bet selection is wider. The simplest and cheapest wager is the Big/Small — a bet that the total of the three dice will fall in the 4–10 range (Small) or the 11–17 range (Big), excluding triples. That bet carries a house edge of about 2.78% under standard Macau rules. That is roughly double the cheapest craps bet, but it is in the same ballpark as many roulette wagers.

The expensive end of sic bo is much more expensive. Specific Triple bets — wagering that all three dice will land on a specific number, say three 4s — carry house edges that start around 11.6% and climb past 30% on the more obscure specific triples under some rulesets. The payouts are correspondingly large (up to 180:1 on a Specific Triple), which is exactly the marketing hook the offshore sites use.

The structural reason sic bo’s worst bets are worse than craps’s worst bets is combinatorics. With three dice there are 216 equally likely outcomes, of which 56 are distinguishable, and the layout rewards punter for betting on the rare outcomes by paying them enormous multiples. Those multiples never come close to matching the true odds, and the gap between payout and true odds is the house edge, which on specific triples sits in territory no craps proposition bet reaches.

Sic bo is also a useful illustration of the broader point that the house edge quoted in marketing is rarely the house edge the punter actually pays. A landing page that promises “house edge from 2.78%” is quoting the Big/Small bet, not the Specific Triple that takes up half the layout’s visual real estate. The punter who only sees the 2.78% and who gravitates toward the bright, high-payout corner of the layout is paying 11–30% without ever being told the number has changed.

Two-up: a different category, mostly

Two-up is not a casino dice game in the same sense as craps and sic bo, because it is played with coins rather than dice, and it is not principally a casino product. It is an Australian tradition with a narrow legal carve-out: it was illegal across the country until specific exceptions were made, and the surviving exceptions are tiny. New South Wales permits it on Anzac Day under the Gambling (Two-Up) Act 1998, played in RSL clubs and hotels. Kalgoorlie, in Western Australia, hosts Australia’s only year-round legal two-up school.

The casino history is short and specific. Two-up was legalised in Australian casinos starting in 1973 at Hobart’s casino, and it is now offered only at Crown Perth and Crown Melbourne among licensed casinos. That is two venues in a country of more than twenty million people, and both venues have it as a limited-schedule table game rather than a 24-hour floor product.

The reason two-up matters for a dice-game page at all is that it is the one product Australian regulators explicitly carved out and then explicitly narrowed. The offshore sites that put “two-up” in their lobby are not offering a legal Australian product, because the legal Australian product has been deliberately restricted to two casino floors and one day of the year elsewhere. The game’s appearance offshore is another instance of the marketing-versus-law gap that runs through the whole category.

Baccarat and blackjack: dice-adjacent, same lesson

Baccarat and blackjack are not dice games, but they keep surfacing in any honest discussion of house edge on casino table games, and the offshore dice sites usually put baccarat next to their craps thumbnail. The maths line up with the dice story. Baccarat’s Banker bet carries a house edge of 1.06%, Player 1.24%, and the Tie bet 14.36%. The Banker bet is one of the cheapest bets on any Australian licensed floor; the Tie bet is one of the most expensive. The pattern is identical to craps: a cheap core bet and a punitive side bet, with the marketing leaning on the side bet.

Blackjack with optimal strategy carries a house edge of about 0.28% under liberal Las Vegas Strip rules and 0.43% under Atlantic City rules. That is the cheapest table-game bet in any Australian casino, and it is the figure that makes blackjack the floor game that rewards basic strategy the most. The game itself is the descendant of vingt-un and veintiuno — Cervantes wrote about veintiuno around 1601-1602, and British rules were published in 1800. The name “blackjack” dates to roughly 1899, around the Klondike Gold Rush. A natural is an ace plus a ten-value card on the first two cards, and the dealer must draw to 17.

The licensed-floor point matters. Crown Melbourne, for instance, offers three approved baccarat variants — Traditional Baccarat, Crown Baccarat and 2 to 1 Baccarat — and the rules of each variant were approved by the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission (VGCCC), which has been Victoria’s casino regulator since 1 July 2022. The VGCCC keeps a public log of approved rule changes — for blackjack at Crown Melbourne, that log includes renaming the “Perfect Pairs” side bet to “Crown Pairs” on 23 December 2024 and introducing a “Free Bet” option with a new “Pot of Gold” side bet on 25 March 2024. The Victorian position is the same as the NSW position: the regulator approves the rules and any change to them before they go on the floor.

That is what a regulated dice or card game looks like. A regulator has approved the rules, the rules are on a public register, and the punter can read them before sitting down. The offshore sites offer none of that: the lobby says “craps” or “sic bo” but the rules behind the button are whatever the operator chose to publish, and there is no Australian body with authority over them.

The licensed Australian floor

Craps, sic bo and baccarat are not available at every Australian casino. Crown Melbourne runs craps, baccarat and a range of blackjack variants; Crown Perth runs two-up alongside its other table games. State regulators approve the rules and the variants before they are introduced. A punter who wants to play a casino dice game in Australia under rules a regulator has signed off on books a table at one of those floors.

The offshore alternative is, by definition, not that. A craps lobby on an offshore site is not a regulated product, is not covered by Australian consumer law, and is offered to an Australian email address in defiance of section 15 of the Interactive Gambling Act. The next section is about how that situation came to be.

The legal picture: prohibition, enforcement, and the bills that tighten it

Online casino games — including dice games — cannot be lawfully offered to a person in Australia. The Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (IGA), as strengthened by the Interactive Gambling Amendment Act 2017, makes it an offence to provide online casino games, online pokies or in-play betting to a person physically in Australia, and no state or territory licenses them. What is licensable is wagering on races and sport placed before the event, lotteries and keno; in practice, online sports and race bookmakers are licensed in the Northern Territory because of the Territory’s tax regime, and the Northern Territory Racing and Wagering Commission (NTRWC) regulates 52 of them — including Sportsbet, Bet365 and Ladbrokes. The commission has no full-time staff and meets once a month in Darwin, which is itself a piece of the picture when thinking about how thinly Australian online wagering is supervised at the regulator level.

The enforcement sits with the ACMA. The ACMA investigates complaints, issues formal warnings to operators, and asks Australian internet service providers to block illegal sites. As of June 2026, the ACMA’s blocking programme had taken 1,751 illegal gambling and affiliate marketing websites offline since the first blocking request in November 2019, and more than 230 unlicensed gambling services had left the Australian market since enforcement was strengthened in 2017. The most recent published round added 12 more domains to the block list: 7Signs, ChromaBet, Donbet, Duospin, Freshbet, Slots Gem, Jacks Club, Lucky Start, Pointsbetz.com, Spinrise, Vinyl Casino and Wildsino.

The arithmetic of the blocking programme sits oddly with the marketing reach of the offshore sites. The first blocking request was November 2019, and by June 2026 the running total of blocked sites had reached 1,751 — about 263 sites blocked per year on average, or roughly five a week. The blocking rate has not slowed visibly as the programme has aged, which is the indicator that the supply side keeps replenishing what the ACMA takes down. A punter who has not personally encountered a blocked site yet has usually encountered one by the second or third time they try a new offshore domain, because the operators cycle through fresh front-end brands faster than the regulator catches them.

The losses the ACMA and industry analysts attribute to illegal sites put a price on the supply that keeps getting replenished. H2 Gambling Capital’s 2025 estimate is that Australians lose about A$3.9 billion a year to illegal gambling sites, and that the share of gambling going through legal channels fell from 74% in 2021 to 64%. The legal-channel share dropping by ten percentage points across four years is the structural version of the blocking-rate figure: the supply keeps growing faster than the enforcement, and the legal market’s share erodes.

The Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 passed Parliament on 19 August 2026 and tightens advertising and inducement rules around offshore gambling. Those measures commence on 1 January 2027, so the law is in place as of a 2026 page but is not yet in force on the day the page is read. A punter reading this in late 2026 is under the regime as it stood at the start of the year; a punter reading the same page in 2027 is under the inducement rules.

The individual player is not prosecuted under the IGA. The Act targets the provider, not the punter, and an Australian who opens an account with an offshore site commits no offence by doing so. That is the only piece of the offshore pitch that is genuinely safe, and it is also the piece the offshore marketing leans on hardest. What it does not tell the punter is the consequence on the other side: an offshore site gives no Australian consumer protection, no complaints body, no recourse if a withdrawal is refused or a bonus is voided, and a balance can sit trapped on a site the day an Australian ISP blocks it.

What a formal ACMA warning actually is

The ACMA’s formal warnings are published on its website and named to the operating company, not just to the brand. The mechanism is administrative rather than criminal: a formal warning is the ACMA’s stated view that the named operator is providing a prohibited interactive gambling service to Australians, and it is the precondition for further enforcement action. The brand list the ACMA has named in formal warnings over the last four years is the closest thing Australia has to a public register of offshore operators targeting the country, and it is the basis for the ranking below.

The most recent warnings follow the same pattern: in March 2026, a formal warning to Pulsup Ltd over Rocketplay.com.au; in April 2026, a formal warning to Ryker B.V. over Jackbit and CasinOK. The earlier warnings trace a longer history. Dama N.V. was warned in May 2022 over six brands (Bambet, Dazard, Level Up, Rocketplay, Wild Tornado and Cobra Casinos), and then again in March 2025 over Woo Casino and May 2025 over Spirit Casino. The pattern of repeated warnings to the same operator is itself a signal: a warning does not necessarily end the conduct.

The earlier 2022 warning to TechSolutions Group N.V. and TechSolutions (CY) Group Limited covered Bizzo Casino, and the ACMA came back to the same brand in July 2025 when it warned Consolutetish S.R.L. — which had taken over the brand — over National Casino and Bizzo Casino. The same month, the ACMA also warned Bamboo Media over Ignition Casino. February 2025 brought a formal warning to EOD Code SRL over Instant Casino; April 2025 a warning to Sterplay Holding Ltd over Casino Intense; and a September 2022 warning to Hollycorn N.V. covered Sky Crown and Blue Leo.

Eleven of the brands the ACMA has warned are listed below. The list is not a recommendation — none of them can lawfully offer the product they are selling to an Australian — but it is a working map of who has been on the ACMA’s published register, and which operating company sits behind which brand.

How this list was put together

The shortlist below is not a ranking of who plays fair, who pays fastest, or who has the best craps lobby. It is a list of brands the ACMA itself has named in a formal warning, ordered by the date of the most recent action where the operating company is the same across multiple warnings. Every brand on the list has offered online casino games to Australians in defiance of the IGA; none of them can lawfully do so today; and the ACMA’s published register is the only verifiable evidence that the conduct happened.

The criteria that separate one entry from another are: which operating company the ACMA named, when the warning was issued, whether the operator has been warned more than once, and whether the brand has changed hands since the original warning. Bonus terms, payout speeds and game libraries were deliberately left out of the criteria: every comparison the offshore sites publish on those axes is unverifiable from the Australian side, and writing a column for them would mean copying affiliate marketing copy onto a page a reader might mistake for an Australian consumer guide.

The list sits below the threshold of usefulness a punter could actually act on, because no Australian can lawfully open an account at any of the listed brands. The list sits above the threshold of usefulness a regulator, a researcher or a journalist could act on, because the ACMA’s own register is the source for every row.

The ACMA’s named operators

The table is intentionally light on the kind of columns an offshore comparison page fills out: there is no bonus column, no payout-time column, no game-count column. Those columns are the marketing, and the marketing is what the ACMA has been writing warnings about. What the table does carry is the date the regulator acted, the legal entity the regulator named, and whether the brand has been warned more than once. The picture that emerges is that a small number of operating companies — Dama N.V., Consolutetish S.R.L. and TechSolutions among them — keep showing up across multiple brand names, and that warnings to the same operator are often followed by warnings to a fresh brand name under the same corporate umbrella.

RocketPlay

Pulsup Ltd received a formal warning from the ACMA in March 2026 concerning Rocketplay.com.au. The brand had already been the subject of a May 2022 warning to Dama N.V. alongside five other casino brands, which makes Rocketplay one of the longer-tracked entries on the ACMA register. The same brand name appearing across two operators and four years is itself a data point about how the offshore market rewraps its front-end brands without changing the underlying pitch.

Level Up Casino

Dama N.V. faced a formal warning from the ACMA in May 2022 covering Level Up alongside five other brands. Dama N.V. has since been warned again — over Woo Casino in March 2025 and Spirit Casino in May 2025 — which puts Level Up in a cluster of brands with a common operator and a common pattern of repeated ACMA attention.

Woo Casino

Dama N.V. was issued a further formal warning by the ACMA in March 2025 covering Woo Casino, three years after the original Dama N.V. warning in May 2022. The repetition of the operator across years is the structural reason the ACMA’s register reads as a corporate map rather than a brand map.

Spirit Casino

Dama N.V. was issued a further formal warning by the ACMA in May 2025 covering Spirit Casino. As with Woo Casino, the same operator is the named party and the brand is the fresh entry.

National Casino

Consolutetish S.R.L. incurred a formal warning from the ACMA in July 2025 covering National Casino alongside Bizzo Casino. The Consolutetish entity is the most recent operator on the ACMA register to appear with a multi-brand warning.

Bizzo Casino

Consolutetish S.R.L. saw a formal warning from the ACMA in July 2025 covering Bizzo Casino. The brand had earlier been the subject of a 2022 warning to TechSolutions (CY) Group Limited and TechSolutions Group N.V. — a change-of-operator instance the ACMA register tracks explicitly.

Ignition Casino

Bamboo Media received a formal warning from the ACMA in July 2025 covering Ignition Casino. Ignition sits in the same July 2025 warning cluster as National Casino and Bizzo Casino.

Instant Casino

EOD Code SRL was issued a formal warning by the ACMA in February 2025 covering Instant Casino. The early-2025 timing puts Instant Casino ahead of the broader 2025 enforcement cluster.

Jackbit

Ryker B.V. was issued a formal warning by the ACMA in April 2026 covering Jackbit alongside CasinOK. The April 2026 warning is the most recent entry on the register alongside the March 2026 Rocketplay action.

Casino Intense

Sterplay Holding Ltd was issued a formal warning by the ACMA in April 2025 covering Casino Intense. Casino Intense sits in the April 2025 slot of the ACMA register.

Sky Crown

Hollycorn N.V. was issued a formal warning by the ACMA covering Sky Crown alongside Blue Leo. Sky Crown is the oldest warning on the list and the one with the longest unbroken history of the brand under the same operator.

What a player in Australia can actually do

The licensed casino floor is one option, with rules approved by a state regulator and consumer protection under Australian law. Crown Melbourne runs craps, baccarat and the blackjack variants discussed above under rules the VGCCC has approved. Crown Perth runs two-up alongside its other table games. Other state regulators — NSW’s Casino Control Act regime, Victoria’s Casino Control Act regime — operate on the same approval principle.

The offshore site is not an option under Australian law, regardless of any licence the site displays in its footer. The IGA makes the supply unlawful, the ACMA enforces against the supplier, and the punter has no Australian recourse if a withdrawal stalls or a bonus is voided. A punter who plays at an offshore site is also playing outside BetStop, the National Self-Exclusion Register, which binds only Australian-licensed wagering services. BetStop has been live since August 2023 and is the right tool for an Australian punter who wants to exclude themselves from legal wagering; it cannot reach an offshore casino.

A punter who feels their play getting away from them has free, confidential support available 24/7 through Gambling Help Online and the National Gambling Helpline on 1800 858 858. The same support is reachable whether the play was at a licensed floor, a licensed online bookmaker or an offshore site.

Responsible play and what the protections actually cover

Australian consumer protection in gambling runs through three channels: the state casino regulators, the ACMA’s enforcement against illegal offshore supply, and the self-exclusion and counselling infrastructure. Each channel covers a different part of the field.

State casino regulators (VGCCC in Victoria, Liquor & Gaming NSW in NSW, the relevant bodies in other states) approve the rules and the variants on their casino floors, audit the operators, and handle patron complaints. The VGCCC’s public log of approved rule changes at Crown Melbourne is the working example of how transparent this supervision is.

The ACMA’s enforcement is the channel that handles the offshore supply. The blocking programme, the formal warnings, and the eventual civil penalties are all aimed at the supplier rather than the punter, and the regulator’s published register is the only public evidence of what conduct has occurred.

The self-exclusion and counselling infrastructure is the channel that handles the punter side. BetStop is the National Self-Exclusion Register, live since August 2023, and binds Australian-licensed online and phone wagering services — a punter who registers with BetStop is excluded across every participating licensed operator. Gambling Help Online and the National Gambling Helpline on 1800 858 858 are free, confidential, and available 24/7.

The offshore gap is the one thing the consumer protection structure does not cover. An offshore casino is not connected to BetStop; an offshore casino is not subject to an Australian regulator’s complaint handling; and an offshore casino is not required to honour a self-exclusion request from an Australian punter. The structure is built for the licensed market, and the licensed market is the only part of the field it reaches.

Payments, advertising and the rules in force this year

The payment rules are a piece of the picture that the offshore sites rarely volunteer. Credit cards, credit-related products and digital currency are banned as payment for licensed online wagering in Australia since 11 June 2024, with penalties of up to A$247,500 for operators that take them. The legal deposit routes for licensed wagering are debit card, bank transfer, PayID and Osko instant payments, and BPAY. An offshore site asking an Australian punter for a credit card or a crypto deposit is operating outside the Australian payment regime — and a punter paying through any of those routes has no Australian consumer protection if the funds are not returned.

The advertising rules are tightening. The Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 passed Parliament on 19 August 2026, and its advertising and inducement measures commence on 1 January 2027. The law is on the books as of a 2026 page, but the inducement provisions are not yet enforceable. The practical effect on a punter reading this in late 2026 is that the inducements the offshore sites currently run — deposit matches, free bets, “exclusive” bonuses — are still in market, and will be more tightly constrained from the start of 2027.

The tax treatment of recreational gambling winnings has not changed: under section 6-5 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, winnings of a recreational player are not assessable income, and losses are not deductible. The treatment is different for a person carrying on a business of gambling, but the ATO is the place to confirm the line for any specific case.

The blocking rate, restated

The ACMA’s blocking programme data provides a clear view of the enforcement landscape. As of June 2026, 1,751 illegal gambling and affiliate marketing websites have been blocked since the first blocking request in November 2019. That is roughly 263 sites blocked per year on average, or about five sites per week. The rate is not falling: the supply side keeps producing fresh domains, the ACMA keeps asking ISPs to block them, and the marketing spend keeps re-acquiring the punters who slip through the cracks between blocking rounds.

The H2 Gambling Capital estimate of A$3.9 billion a year in losses to illegal sites, paired with the legal-channel share falling from 74% in 2021 to 64% in 2025, is the same picture expressed in money rather than domain counts. The legal market is shrinking as a share of the total, even as the blocking programme takes more sites offline, and that combination is what a punter should hold in mind when an offshore site markets itself as a small, friendly operator. The friendliness is the same friendliness the ACMA has spent the last several years warning, fining and asking ISPs to block.

Frequently asked questions

What is the house edge on a Pass Line bet in craps?

A Pass Line bet on a standard craps layout carries a house edge of 1.41%. The bet wins on a 7 or 11 on the come-out roll, loses on 2, 3 or 12, and otherwise establishes a point the shooter has to repeat before a 7 comes up. It is the cheapest core bet on a craps table, alongside the Come bet at the same 1.41%.

Why does the Any Craps one-roll bet carry a much higher house edge than Pass Line?

The Any Craps bet is a one-roll wager that pays 7:1 on a result of 2, 3 or 12, and the payout does not match the true odds of the underlying event. The Pass Line bet, by contrast, has its payout aligned with the odds through the multi-roll point mechanism, which is why its house edge sits at 1.41%. Any Craps carries 11.11% — roughly eight times the edge of the cheapest craps bet — because the payout looks generous but the odds are stacked against it.

Are dice games like craps offered on licensed Australian casino floors?

Craps is offered at Crown Melbourne under rules approved by the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission, and two-up is offered at Crown Perth and Crown Melbourne. State casino regulators approve the rules and any changes before they are introduced at a casino floor. The licensed-floor picture is small, but it is real, and the rules behind each table are on a public register.

What’s the difference between a “right” bettor and a “wrong” bettor in craps?

A right bettor wagers with the shooter using Pass Line and Come bets, and is betting that the point will be made before a 7. A wrong bettor wagers against the shooter using Don’t Pass and Don’t Come bets, and is betting the 7 will land first. The two bets carry nearly identical edges (1.41% for Pass Line versus 1.36% for Don’t Pass ), but the wrong bet is socially marked at most tables and is the less common play.

Can an online dice game legally be offered to someone based in Australia?

No. Under the Interactive Gambling Act 2001, as strengthened by the Interactive Gambling Amendment Act 2017, it is an offence to provide online casino games — including craps and sic bo — to a person in Australia, and no state or territory licenses them. The ACMA enforces against the supplier rather than the punter, and offshore sites offering these games to Australians have been the subject of formal warnings and ISP-level blocking since 2017. The individual punter is not prosecuted, but they have no Australian consumer protection, no complaints body and no recourse if a withdrawal stalls.

Do all casino dice games use the same house-edge structure as craps?

No. Sic bo, played with three dice, runs across a wider range: the Big/Small bet carries a house edge of about 2.78%, while Specific Triple bets run from around 11.6% to over 30% depending on the ruleset. Two-up is a coin-tossing game rather than a dice game and is not licensable as a casino product outside Crown Perth and Crown Melbourne plus the Anzac Day carve-out in NSW. The common thread is that the cheapest bet on any of these games is at least twice as expensive as blackjack with optimal strategy (0.28% under liberal Las Vegas Strip rules).